Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:13:09 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: Joe Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com>, stable@freebsd.org, current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006) Message-ID: <20051218171308.GA20557@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <43A53215.8090001@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <43A266E5.3080103@samsco.org> <20051217220021.GB93998@svcolo.com> <43A4A557.3010600@mac.com> <43A53215.8090001@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 09:55:33AM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > Chuck Swiger wrote: >=20 > >Upgrading the ports from there was somewhat annoying, as this guy's=20 > >machine had > >~400 or so, but deleting them all, and then using "pkg_add -r " works ju= st=20 > >fine > >if you want to grab the latest current binaries. From there you can=20 > >portupgrade > >as usual. > > > >Now, if you want to talk about upgrading to intermediate patch releases,= =20 > >you've > >got a valid point there. :-) >=20 > Doesn't creating a binary updates system that's going to be practical to = use > require implementation of that old and exceedingly bikesheddable subject:= =20 > packaging > up the base system? No, after all the *existing* binary update systems don't require packaging of the base system. Kris --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDpZikWry0BWjoQKURAvTSAKDLj/qk806/kOlSpxqOuYzjOIp/3wCfRu1/ gsh6TvfeRJ40HCVp8Wg9n70= =SU7Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051218171308.GA20557>